My momma, 55, otherwise ridiculously healthy, has terminal brain cancer among other things. She was diagnosed five days before her 55th birthday (10/25) this year -- [seemingly] out of the blue.
While her and my father have insurance (through United Health Group), there's no smooth sailing because her treatments are so "specialized".
I, at 22, cleaned out my savings and checking just to make sure that her treatments will be paid for, and additionally hire a wicked-awesome in-home PCA to make sure that she's living comfortably when I'm not able to be there.
I won't get into the logistics of why my father / her husband won't pay for things.
Never been so proud to eat Ramen Noodles.
Edit: you guys make me tear up. Thanks for the support and kind words.
That's one of the most powerful statements I have heard in a long time - I'm sure she's proud of you. Good on you.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
A great doctor bought us three good years - far longer than anyone expected.
I always say, if I can give anyone one piece of advice it's "Don't wait!". There's no telling how long any of us have left.
Fortunately for me, the people at Mayo Clinic are amazing and gave treatment they knew we couldn't even start to dream to pay for. Not everyone is so lucky.
Ended up dropping the whole thing though. And lawyer said it was slam dunk malpractice, but reality bites and it's amazing what hospitals can do.
Paraphrasing from a a recent movie "Every one should live by a code...glad to know that yours is Family."
Your efforts are truly amazing. I hope one day in the face of such challenges I could be half the person you are now.
Just to answer the question above, the US provides SSDI insurance as part of the social security program to cover people with disabilities who cannot work. And many (most?) professionals also have additional long term disability insurance to cover the difference between SSDI and what their normal living expenses are.
He had to pay $11k out of the total $55k bill, rest was paid by insurance. ($7000 for a CT scan? $4500 worth of Anesthesia? I'd be surprised if one still doesn't think these are artificially inflated prices)
I'm not sure how much would he be charged if this whole insurance thing was not there - may be ~$11k?
(Just for the curious: In India, that operation in the best of hospitals would have cost him may be around $1600 without insurance. With insurance, he'd save most of even that. )
In fact the US would look cheaper for the majority of the population. Which is comparing against a low bar.
I don't think you could classify that as a working system.
They are not. As I said, this was the cost in the best of hospitals. In government hospitals, poor people get medical care for a fraction of it. Of course, the health care system is still not good, but I'm convinced that a US like system of insurance is not a solution either. Canada and some other countries have it much better.
>In fact the US would look cheaper for the majority of the population.
No, it's not. Had this system been working, millions of Americans wouldn't go outside USA to get basic treatment (many of them go to India). Something is fundamentally wrong here ([1], [2], [3], [4]).
[1] 7.5 Million US residents travel abroad for care each year: http://www.cdc.gov/features/medicaltourism/
[2] Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study : http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
[3] Why U.S. Health Care Is Obscenely Expensive, In 12 Charts : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/health-care-costs-_...
[4] 'Medical tourism' draws Americans to India : http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/traveler...
It's not 7.5 million US residents per year, it's 750,000.
And this:
"The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993."
Calculated upwards, that would be 404,000 or so on a population equal basis with the US. A lot of Canadians are seeking treatment abroad too.
You should clarify your comment by mentioning what state and city you live in, how much you earn a year, and how many multiples that is of the average income in India, and in your state.
Healthcare in India is operated by the states; there is no national program. Care is not consistent. [0]
In India, can doctors provide food? I'm serious. 42% of Indian children are malnourished [1] - a frighteningly higher rate than the average malnourishment rate of sub-Saharan African countries.
This is but one figure representing India's overall healthcare system (or lack thereof), and unhealthy populace.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_India
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_India#Health_iss...
Despite the diplomatic meltdown between Fiji and the western world, Australia and NZ continued to offer healthcare to Fijians. It was a decision by the Fijian government to start sending people to India instead. [1]
Also, Fiji has very large ethnic ties with India. [2] The country has a history of deep social and religious divisions as a result. [3]
I don't think there's any suggestion or indication that it's actually preferable to have surgery or treatment in India rather than Australia or NZ.
As an Australian, I'm sorry that Fijians can't come here anymore under their healthcare program.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Fijian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat...
[1]: http://www.fiji.gov.fj/Media-Center/Press-Releases/FIJI-LOOK...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Fiji
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Fiji#Religious_and_...
Australia and New Zealand only deny medical visas for people in the Fiji government and military (and their family).
I do not understand the countries that don´t have this, it is just logical that if you pay when you are healthy you must be 100% covered when you are sick (without excuses or having to justify anything). The most strange thing is that what I pay for my health insurance is less of what I heard it is pay in USA (I pay 70 USD per month) but the difference is big: I live assured that whatever happens I'll be covered, no disease will make me lose my house.
The problem is not about beeing a developing country or not, it is about political decisions that obligate insurances to do what they must do.
No system is without its problems. I'm just glad in the US it's not about quality or quantity of care, just funding.
http://breastcancer.answers.com/medications/the-cost-of-neup...
The cost of the drugs was just picked up by the medical system instead of my pocketbook.
I have seen this argument before; American health care is expensive because everybody else is a slacker who can't pay. It's obviously false. US pharma companies aren't subsidizing Canadian drugs, the Canadian government is. That Canadian drug prices are lower is more a function of the broken US medical system than anything else.
... However ...
I got diagnosed with Cancer (lymphoma) in 2008. I was xrayed, CT scanned, blood tested and ultrasound guidance biopsied so fast that my head spun. From initial lump discovery to the onset of chemo was only a couple of weeks. Quality of care was first rate, and it's been 5 years. My experience with Canadian health care for a life threatening condition was extremely good.
I should also note that the cost of my medication was a significant $100k+ figure, not including chemo drugs, and this was all covered to an out of pocket of under $1k.
I was a working as a contractor, and didn't have any private medical insurance of any kind.
Needless to say, looking at the cost of treatment, and the ruinous effect it would have had on my (and my wife's) finances, I am very glad I live in Canada.
Imagine not getting treated for cancer for 3 years after being diagnosed.
reddit.com/r/igotout
I'm not sure why your first instinct is to think that he should rely on his country rather than on his family and friends.
That's awfully sad, albeit not as sad as the fact that it was successful.
He's not saying Obama or Bush or Clinton or Bush or $foo, he's saying the government.
If Richard and his family would not have to care about the money, this thread could be about nothing else beside him and his achievements.
That's the thing though. It has only become a right or entitlement in the places that provide it. I'd wager people would feel the exact same way if their government provided housing when compared to countries that don't provide housing.
No doubt entitlement priorities vary based on the development level of the country, the culture, and so on ad infinitum. There is hardly a social safety net in China for example, the population is heavily expected to handle its own savings. Most likely their population will gradually demand more entitlements, looking to copy what others have done.
There are obviously all sorts of arguments that focus on bankruptcy, high costs, the burden of being without a job, and so on when it comes to healthcare - that sound far more reasonable than other entitlement arguments (eg should everyone be given a free yacht).
America of course does provide free and or heavily subsidized housing (not free house ownership mind you), in every state in the union in fact (along with federal programs). Mostly it's a matter of what you qualify for, and where (varying based on what's available in your location, and what your income is, etc). I don't think all entitlements are created equal in terms of demand or import; the population of a country is going to regard some as far more important than others.
This is why in France we have universal healthcare, that goes beyond legal residents but also benefits illegals (with AME, Aide Médicale d'État).
1) Larger risk pools are better. Let's say you have your ten closest family members and friends, and they're willing to spend an arbitrary amount to save your life. Despite that, a diagnosis like brain cancer or a severe heart attack with complications is likely to bankrupt all of them. Make it hundreds of millions of people, and the bumps are smoothed out to oblivion.
2) Lots of people are embedded in communities that have fewer resources available than other communities. You're damning them to die--or, in this case, die in a significantly less dignified way without proper palliative treatment--just because their friends and family happen to be poorer.
3) What about the people who don't have many family members or friends? Do we just want to condemn them to suffer, merely because they thrive with only a few friends instead of many?
Private insurance helps with these problems. Some people, however, aren't willing, knowledgeable, or rich enough to purchase health insurance. Even if you hold them in contempt and think that they deserve to die because of their lack of insurance, as a society we don't like that. So we can either (a) provide everyone with public health insurance/care or (b) require everyone to purchase insurance. Some countries go with (a), some with (b), most a mixture of the two.
It's best that whatever country we're in, we look at the countries that have had the best results in health outcomes and copy them as best we can in new local contexts.
Does that make sense?